Overview of Section 406 of the Nigerian Criminal Code
Section 406 of the Criminal Code provides:
“Any person who, with intent to steal anything, demands it from any person with threats of injury or detriment of any kind to be caused either by the offender or by any other person if the demand is not complied with, is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for three years.”
This provision criminalizes the act of making a threatening demand for property with the intention to steal. The threat need not be violent; it suffices if it is calculated to instill fear or induce submission through psychological pressure or implied consequences.
Understanding “Menaces” – Judicial Interpretation
In the English case of Thorne v. Motor Trade Association [1937] AC 797 at 817, Lord Wright defined “menace” as “a threat of any action that is detrimental or unpleasant to the person addressed.” This judicial interpretation aligns with the language of Section 406 of the Nigerian Criminal Code and Section 291 of the Penal Code.
Essential Ingredients of the Offence of Demanding Property with Menaces
A. Demand Made With Intent to Steal
This is the foundational element. As held in Moledina v. R. [1960] E.A. 678 and reaffirmed in Wada v. I.G.P., there must be both a demand and a corresponding intent to steal. Without the presence of intent to unlawfully deprive another of property, the offence is not complete.
Case Example of Demanding with Menaces
Osidola v. Commissioner of Police (1958) N.R.N.L.R. 42
A police officer, while investigating a stolen cheque, told the complainant:
“Whether you are guilty or not, if I take you to the charge office, you will be locked up till the investigation ends… Instead of being locked up, you should try to give £20.”
The complainant, fearing detention, paid part of the amount. The court held this constituted demanding property with menaces, emphasizing that official capacity cannot be used to extort.
B. The Threat Must Be Capable of Unsettling a Reasonable Person
The threat doesn’t have to result in actual fear in the particular victim; it is sufficient that the threat would unsettle the mind of a reasonable person.
Authority: Commissioner of Police v. Ededey (1964) 1 All N.L.R.
The court held that a threat of any kind is enough, provided it is calculated to override the free will of the person addressed.
R v. Walton and Ogden (1863) The accused falsely posed as bailiffs and demanded money under a fake warrant. The court held that threatening actions based on false authority amounted to menaces, even though no physical violence occurred.
C. It Is Immaterial Whether the Victim Was Actually Frightened
What matters is the objective effect of the threat — not the subjective reaction of the victim.
In R v. Kalio
The accused threatened a prostitute that unless she paid money for allegedly infecting him with gonorrhea, he would hang himself in her house, leading to her arrest.
The court held that this was a threat of detriment under Section 406, regardless of whether the accused would actually carry it out.
The test is objective: Would the threat unsettle the mind of a reasonable person in similar circumstances?
Contrast cases: R v. Harry (1967)
Where a threat fails to meet this threshold, i.e., it is not serious or believable enough to unsettle a reasonable person, no offence is committed.
Attempt to Demand With Menaces?
In R v. Moran (1952) W.R.N.L.R., the court clarified that there is no such offence as an attempt to demand with menaces. The offence is either complete upon the act of demand or not committed at all.
Demand Through Writing
It is well established that a demand made via writing is complete upon posting,, not upon receipt by the intended victim.
Judicial Authority in support:R v. Treacy (1971) A.C.
The court held that a written demand constitutes an offence immediately upon being posted, even if the recipient never reads it.
Bona Fide Claim of Right as a Defence to the offence of Demanding with Menaces.
Where the accused honestly believes he has a right to the property demanded — even if mistaken — the requisite mens rea (criminal intent) is lacking.
I.G.P. v. Emeozo (1957) WRNLR 213 The accused demanded compensation for alleged adultery involving his wife. Though the court disbelieved the adultery claim, on appeal, was held that an honest belief in a customary legal right to compensation was sufficient to negate the criminal intent under Section 406.
Summary: Ingredients of the Offence of Demanding Property with Menaces.
To secure a conviction for demanding property with menaces with intent to steal, the prosecution must prove:
To secure a conviction for demanding property with menaces with intent to steal,
1. A Demand Was Made– Oral, written, or by conduct
2. The Demand Was Accompanied by a Threat or Menaces Capable of unsettling a reasonable person.
3. The Demand Was Made With Intent to Steal,There must be an intention to permanently deprive the owner of the of the property.
LEGAL INSIGHT
This offence blends elements of theft, extortion, and abuse of power. While seemingly straightforward, its application involves a careful assessment of intent, circumstances, and reasonableness. The courts have consistently reinforced that a threat need not be overtly violent, and that a bona fide belief in one’s legal right may exonerate an otherwise culpable act.
Hope this was helpful, don’t forget to leave comment. Next post is the offence of Burglary and house Breaking.